Exploring the Integration of IoT and Robotics in Manufacturing: A Scoping Review of Disruptive Technologies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is designed as a review, which is an appropriate approach for mapping a broad and fragmented research landscape. The authors pursue their objectives using the PRISMA-ScR methodology, presenting a standardised and transparent process for study selection. The chosen inclusion and exclusion criteria are clearly defined and align with the study’s goals. Theoretical works, irrelevant IoT application domains, and studies published before 2019 were excluded, ensuring both relevance and timeliness. The discussion effectively reflects the research findings and provides a critical analysis of three key challenges. Overall, this is a well-executed study with a well-justified methodology, analytical results, and practical recommendations for further research and implementation. I recommend it for publication, subject to minor linguistic and stylistic revisions.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

 

The study is designed as a review, which is an appropriate approach for mapping a broad and fragmented research landscape. The authors pursue their objectives using the PRISMA-ScR methodology, presenting a standardised and transparent process for study selection. The chosen inclusion and exclusion criteria are clearly defined and align with the study’s goals. Theoretical works, irrelevant IoT application domains, and studies published before 2019 were excluded, ensuring both relevance and timeliness. The discussion effectively reflects the research findings and provides a critical analysis of three key challenges. Overall, this is a well-executed study with a well-justified methodology, analytical results, and practical recommendations for further research and implementation. I recommend it for publication, subject to minor linguistic and stylistic revisions.

 

 

Author’s response.

Thank you. The manuscript has been revised.

Reviewer 1:

 

The study is designed as a review, which is an appropriate approach for mapping a broad and fragmented research landscape. The authors pursue their objectives using the PRISMA-ScR methodology, presenting a standardised and transparent process for study selection. The chosen inclusion and exclusion criteria are clearly defined and align with the study’s goals. Theoretical works, irrelevant IoT application domains, and studies published before 2019 were excluded, ensuring both relevance and timeliness. The discussion effectively reflects the research findings and provides a critical analysis of three key challenges. Overall, this is a well-executed study with a well-justified methodology, analytical results, and practical recommendations for further research and implementation. I recommend it for publication, subject to minor linguistic and stylistic revisions.

 

 

Author’s response.

Thank you. The manuscript has been revised.

 

Reviewer 2:

The paper addresses an interesting and relevant topic at the intersection of robotics, IoT, and manufacturing. The literature is rich in this field, and the authors’ attempt to synthesize results and identify future research directions is valuable. The use of PRISMA guidelines adds transparency to the review process. The inclusion of a list of abbreviations is helpful for readers.
My main concern, however, is the limited number of papers analyzed. Only 14 papers form the basis of the findings, which significantly narrows the scope and reduces the strength of the conclusions. Given the breadth of the field, this small sample size raises questions about the representativeness and robustness of the results.
Some specific comments:
- Inconsistencies in paper numbers: The abstract and Results section refer to 15 selected papers. Figure 1 shows 14 papers as the number of selected papers. Tables 2 and 3 list 14 articles. Please clarify and correct these numbers to ensure internal consistency.
- Data availability: The paper states that data are available in OSF storage, but I only found Figure 1 in a doc file. Where can be the dataset found? 
- The reported number of results from Google Scholar seems problematic. Google Scholar allows full-text search or title search, but not restriction to title/abstract/keywords. A full-text search would likely yield many more results than reported. Please clarify exactly how the search was performed.
- Please define acronyms at their first occurrence in the text (e.g., AUC). This will improve readability.
- Line 281: Kar et al. (2023) is cited but not included in the References section. Please add it.
- Line 289: Observed benefit distributions – how were the percentages calculated? Please explain the method in more detail.
Typos and language issues
- Page 2, last line: there is a closing bracket without an opening one.
- Table 3, line 5: there is an extra bracket after [19].

While the manuscript is generally understandable, some sentences would benefit from revision for clarity and grammatical correctness. For example:

- Line 269: The structure of the sentence is unclear. The word Who is confusing—please clarify the intended meaning.

 

 

Author’s response:

Thank you, here are the step by step correction as reviewed:

 

1. The included paper numbering has been corrected.
2. A data summary of included studies has been added to the osf
3. The same Boolean string was used for consistency across databases, and the search returned approximately 511 results, which were manually screened for relevance by title and abstract.
4. Acronyms has been defined in their first occurrence
5. Kar et al., on line 281 has been addressed
6. Calculations of the observed benefit has been uploaded on osf
7. Page 2 last line have been addressed
8. Table 3 line 5 have been addressed.
9. The sentence structured have been reviewed and rewritten.

 

Reviewer 3:

This scoping review manuscript addresses a highly relevant and timely topic: the convergent integration of IoT, robotics, and emerging technologies like Digital Twins within the Industry 4.0 manufacturing paradigm. The authors systematically map the literature from 2019 to 2025, identifying key themes, performance outcomes, and integration challenges. The strengths of the manuscript lie in its clear structure, adherence to a scoping review methodology (PRISMA), and its central argument for a synergistic "IoT-Robotics Convergence Model." The findings, which highlight trade-offs between precision-scalability and efficiency-safety, are valuable for researchers and practitioners. But, the manuscript requires critical revisions before accepted.
1. The search strategy is unclear. The text mentions searching "Scopus, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science, and SpringerLink" (p1), but Table 1 and the PRISMA flow diagram list "Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Springer Nature." This discrepancy must be resolved for reproducibility.
2. The PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1) shows 14 studies included, but the results section consistently refers to 15 studies. The numbers in the diagram (n=160 for eligibility, n=14 included) also contradict the text on p5 which states a final set of 15 studies. This is a critical inconsistency that undermines the review's rigor.
3. The proposed "IoT-Robotics Convergence Model" is mentioned as a key contribution but is not described or visualized anywhere in the manuscript. A conceptual framework of this importance must be detailed, even briefly, to give readers insight into its components and relationships.
4. Table 2 is problematic. The first row lacks a study citation, making it uninterpretable. Furthermore, the table lists study `[18]` twice with different scores (75% and 95%), which appears to be a significant error. This table requires a complete and careful revision.
5. The introduction (p2) is somewhat repetitive, particularly regarding the description of the problem and the review's aims. It could be condensed for better impact.
6. When discussing "path planning efficiency through adaptive strategies", the authors should mention more path planning examples with self-adaption, such as:
[1] L. Chen et al., "CNNs based Foothold Selection for Energy-Efficient Quadruped Locomotion over Rough Terrains," 2019 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), Dali, China, 2019, pp. 1115-1120, doi: 10.1109/ROBIO49542.2019.8961842.

 

 

Author’s response:

Thank you, here are the step by step correction as reviewed:

1. The search strategy error has been addressed right from the abstract to the conclusion.
2. The mistake on included studies have been addressed too
3. The proposed IoT-Robotics Convergence Model has been removed for consistency, maybe published separately later.
4. The MMAT on the table have been significantly addressed
5. The introduction repetitiveness has been condensed.
6. The recommended Chen et al.. study on Path planning efficiency was also included in the discussion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses an interesting and relevant topic at the intersection of robotics, IoT, and manufacturing. The literature is rich in this field, and the authors’ attempt to synthesize results and identify future research directions is valuable. The use of PRISMA guidelines adds transparency to the review process. The inclusion of a list of abbreviations is helpful for readers.
My main concern, however, is the limited number of papers analyzed. Only 14 papers form the basis of the findings, which significantly narrows the scope and reduces the strength of the conclusions. Given the breadth of the field, this small sample size raises questions about the representativeness and robustness of the results.
Some specific comments:
- Inconsistencies in paper numbers: The abstract and Results section refer to 15 selected papers. Figure 1 shows 14 papers as the number of selected papers. Tables 2 and 3 list 14 articles. Please clarify and correct these numbers to ensure internal consistency.
- Data availability: The paper states that data are available in OSF storage, but I only found Figure 1 in a doc file. Where can be the dataset found? 
- The reported number of results from Google Scholar seems problematic. Google Scholar allows full-text search or title search, but not restriction to title/abstract/keywords. A full-text search would likely yield many more results than reported. Please clarify exactly how the search was performed.
- Please define acronyms at their first occurrence in the text (e.g., AUC). This will improve readability.
- Line 281: Kar et al. (2023) is cited but not included in the References section. Please add it.
- Line 289: Observed benefit distributions – how were the percentages calculated? Please explain the method in more detail.
Typos and language issues
- Page 2, last line: there is a closing bracket without an opening one.
- Table 3, line 5: there is an extra bracket after [19].

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While the manuscript is generally understandable, some sentences would benefit from revision for clarity and grammatical correctness. For example:

- Line 269: The structure of the sentence is unclear. The word Who is confusing—please clarify the intended meaning.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

The paper addresses an interesting and relevant topic at the intersection of robotics, IoT, and manufacturing. The literature is rich in this field, and the authors’ attempt to synthesize results and identify future research directions is valuable. The use of PRISMA guidelines adds transparency to the review process. The inclusion of a list of abbreviations is helpful for readers.
My main concern, however, is the limited number of papers analyzed. Only 14 papers form the basis of the findings, which significantly narrows the scope and reduces the strength of the conclusions. Given the breadth of the field, this small sample size raises questions about the representativeness and robustness of the results.
Some specific comments:
- Inconsistencies in paper numbers: The abstract and Results section refer to 15 selected papers. Figure 1 shows 14 papers as the number of selected papers. Tables 2 and 3 list 14 articles. Please clarify and correct these numbers to ensure internal consistency.
- Data availability: The paper states that data are available in OSF storage, but I only found Figure 1 in a doc file. Where can be the dataset found? 
- The reported number of results from Google Scholar seems problematic. Google Scholar allows full-text search or title search, but not restriction to title/abstract/keywords. A full-text search would likely yield many more results than reported. Please clarify exactly how the search was performed.
- Please define acronyms at their first occurrence in the text (e.g., AUC). This will improve readability.
- Line 281: Kar et al. (2023) is cited but not included in the References section. Please add it.
- Line 289: Observed benefit distributions – how were the percentages calculated? Please explain the method in more detail.
Typos and language issues
- Page 2, last line: there is a closing bracket without an opening one.
- Table 3, line 5: there is an extra bracket after [19].

While the manuscript is generally understandable, some sentences would benefit from revision for clarity and grammatical correctness. For example:

- Line 269: The structure of the sentence is unclear. The word Who is confusing—please clarify the intended meaning.

 

 

Author’s response:

Thank you, here are the step by step correction as reviewed:

 

1. The included paper numbering has been corrected.
2. A data summary of included studies has been added to the osf
3. The same Boolean string was used for consistency across databases, and the search returned approximately 511 results, which were manually screened for relevance by title and abstract.
4. Acronyms has been defined in their first occurrence
5. Kar et al., on line 281 has been addressed
6. Calculations of the observed benefit has been uploaded on osf
7. Page 2 last line have been addressed
8. Table 3 line 5 have been addressed.
9. The sentence structured have been reviewed and rewritten.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This scoping review manuscript addresses a highly relevant and timely topic: the convergent integration of IoT, robotics, and emerging technologies like Digital Twins within the Industry 4.0 manufacturing paradigm. The authors systematically map the literature from 2019 to 2025, identifying key themes, performance outcomes, and integration challenges. The strengths of the manuscript lie in its clear structure, adherence to a scoping review methodology (PRISMA), and its central argument for a synergistic "IoT-Robotics Convergence Model." The findings, which highlight trade-offs between precision-scalability and efficiency-safety, are valuable for researchers and practitioners. But, the manuscript requires critical revisions before accepted.
1. The search strategy is unclear. The text mentions searching "Scopus, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science, and SpringerLink" (p1), but Table 1 and the PRISMA flow diagram list "Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Springer Nature." This discrepancy must be resolved for reproducibility.
2. The PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1) shows 14 studies included, but the results section consistently refers to 15 studies. The numbers in the diagram (n=160 for eligibility, n=14 included) also contradict the text on p5 which states a final set of 15 studies. This is a critical inconsistency that undermines the review's rigor.
3. The proposed "IoT-Robotics Convergence Model" is mentioned as a key contribution but is not described or visualized anywhere in the manuscript. A conceptual framework of this importance must be detailed, even briefly, to give readers insight into its components and relationships.
4. Table 2 is problematic. The first row lacks a study citation, making it uninterpretable. Furthermore, the table lists study `[18]` twice with different scores (75% and 95%), which appears to be a significant error. This table requires a complete and careful revision.
5. The introduction (p2) is somewhat repetitive, particularly regarding the description of the problem and the review's aims. It could be condensed for better impact.
6. When discussing "path planning efficiency through adaptive strategies", the authors should mention more path planning examples with self-adaption, such as:
[1] L. Chen et al., "CNNs based Foothold Selection for Energy-Efficient Quadruped Locomotion over Rough Terrains," 2019 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), Dali, China, 2019, pp. 1115-1120, doi: 10.1109/ROBIO49542.2019.8961842.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

This scoping review manuscript addresses a highly relevant and timely topic: the convergent integration of IoT, robotics, and emerging technologies like Digital Twins within the Industry 4.0 manufacturing paradigm. The authors systematically map the literature from 2019 to 2025, identifying key themes, performance outcomes, and integration challenges. The strengths of the manuscript lie in its clear structure, adherence to a scoping review methodology (PRISMA), and its central argument for a synergistic "IoT-Robotics Convergence Model." The findings, which highlight trade-offs between precision-scalability and efficiency-safety, are valuable for researchers and practitioners. But, the manuscript requires critical revisions before accepted.
1. The search strategy is unclear. The text mentions searching "Scopus, IEEE Xplore, Web of Science, and SpringerLink" (p1), but Table 1 and the PRISMA flow diagram list "Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Springer Nature." This discrepancy must be resolved for reproducibility.
2. The PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1) shows 14 studies included, but the results section consistently refers to 15 studies. The numbers in the diagram (n=160 for eligibility, n=14 included) also contradict the text on p5 which states a final set of 15 studies. This is a critical inconsistency that undermines the review's rigor.
3. The proposed "IoT-Robotics Convergence Model" is mentioned as a key contribution but is not described or visualized anywhere in the manuscript. A conceptual framework of this importance must be detailed, even briefly, to give readers insight into its components and relationships.
4. Table 2 is problematic. The first row lacks a study citation, making it uninterpretable. Furthermore, the table lists study `[18]` twice with different scores (75% and 95%), which appears to be a significant error. This table requires a complete and careful revision.
5. The introduction (p2) is somewhat repetitive, particularly regarding the description of the problem and the review's aims. It could be condensed for better impact.
6. When discussing "path planning efficiency through adaptive strategies", the authors should mention more path planning examples with self-adaption, such as:
[1] L. Chen et al., "CNNs based Foothold Selection for Energy-Efficient Quadruped Locomotion over Rough Terrains," 2019 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), Dali, China, 2019, pp. 1115-1120, doi: 10.1109/ROBIO49542.2019.8961842.

 

 

Author’s response:

Thank you, here are the step by step correction as reviewed:

1. The search strategy error has been addressed right from the abstract to the conclusion.
2. The mistake on included studies have been addressed too
3. The proposed IoT-Robotics Convergence Model has been removed for consistency, maybe published separately later.
4. The MMAT on the table have been significantly addressed
5. The introduction repetitiveness has been condensed.
6. The recommended Chen et al.. study on Path planning efficiency was also included in the discussion

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been sufficiently improved for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed most comments. It can be accepted now.